Originally Posted By dshyates "No, it is not possible for a public company to take a time-out from Increasing Shareholder Value. Do you think the institutional investors that own such a large portion of Disney stock and have a huge influence on the board of directors would be willing to let earnings go for a quarter or a year so that WDW hotels can be spruced up in order to improve the guest experience? They would be violating their fiduciary duty to do so." The philosophy of a day trader. Greed and demand for MORE will kill the product. Trajectory too high, it's gonna flame out. Neglecting existing properties including the parks, overbuilding new rooms, all for quick gain.
Originally Posted By dshyates "I can't believe how negative people are when it comes to money." As long as CEO and Executive salaries are in the 100s of millions while the people who make that company work qualify for food stamps and can't afford proper health care for their kids, the unwashed masses aren't going to be thrilled about buying the extra expensive sparkley paint for the bosses Mercedes 600.
Originally Posted By dshyates Don't get me wrong. Being self employed I don't feel that way, but I do see why some do. CEO saleries have gone from an average $1.5 mil in 1983 to the over the top amounts in the 100s of millions that CEOs from companies like EXXON and Disney are pulling down. While the lowest class has remained stagnant and the salaries of the middle class is lower than it was 35 years ago. Reagan's trickle down theory obviously doesn't work. Give the rich people money they don't raise employees saleries they stay at more expensive luxury resorts.
Originally Posted By fkurucz >>You've already answered your own question: No, it is not possible for a public company to take a time-out from Increasing Shareholder Value. Do you think the institutional investors that own such a large portion of Disney stock and have a huge influence on the board of directors would be willing to let earnings go for a quarter or a year so that WDW hotels can be spruced up in order to improve the guest experience? They would be violating their fiduciary duty to do so.<< As long as the hotels are packed, they have no reason to fix them up. The money is better spent on increasing capacity (from Wall St's perspective).
Originally Posted By fkurucz >>The philosophy of a day trader. Greed and demand for MORE will kill the product. Trajectory too high, it's gonna flame out. Neglecting existing properties including the parks, overbuilding new rooms, all for quick gain.<< Then, as a customer, you need to let them know that you WON"T be coming back because the hotels are parks are run down. If enough people do this they will take notice.
Originally Posted By fkurucz >>As long as CEO and Executive salaries are in the 100s of millions while the people who make that company work qualify for food stamps and can't afford proper health care for their kids, the unwashed masses aren't going to be thrilled about buying the extra expensive sparkley paint for the bosses Mercedes 600.<< While I share your indignation, I really doubt that anyone will pass on a WDW vacation simply because Disney's CEO is overpaid and CM's are underpaid.
Originally Posted By hopemax >As long as the hotels are packed, they have no reason to fix them up. Disney has been offering 60% off two rooms for CM's. Are they doing that out of the goodness of their hearts? When I first started reading Disney websites, (1996) everyone would fall over themselves for a 10% or 20% MKC or AP discount. Now the postcard/email rates seem to be up to 40% regularly and free ticket upgrades and free dining promotions. It seems to me people have spoken and Disney has decided that they aren't willing to make the necessary improvements.
Originally Posted By MPierce >> I don't know for sure how big this thing is going to be or exactly where it will be. But my understanding now is that it would be right on the edge of property, where there would already be outside developers anyway. It's just that one side of the road will be International Drive as we know it now, and the other side will be something somewhat similar, only designed by Disney. It might act as a buffer? << I'm just worried that this is only the beginning of expansion. The Four Seasons I can understand. For what ever reason Disney does not know how to run a true luxury hotel. We have beautifully themed hotels, and Disney might call them deluxe, but they are not true luxury resorts. Don't get me wrong I love staying at the Wilderness Lodge, but you can pay less for a Four Seasons room at several places around the country, than a room at WL during value season would cost. >> But I think you're missing what I see as one of the key goals of the WW project: have outside brands, management, and ownership but with Disney master planning specifically so that it does NOT turn out to look like 192. There are many communities in the US that have all of the usual suspects of retail, lodging, and restaurant brands but don't look like 192 because of master planning and zoning. Just a sign ordinance would be a big help. << I'm sure it will be beautiful, I just don't want it located within the property line of the Walt Disney World Resort. I have nothinf against 192 it serves its purpose. No matter how much you landscape are how much themeing you do I don't see how you can put shopping mauls, restaurants, and 4000 to 5000 lower, and moderate priced motels in a 450 acre site, and be proud to attach the name Disney to it. Off property fine, just not on property, my opinion.
Originally Posted By dshyates "Then, as a customer, you need to let them know that you WON"T be coming back because the hotels are parks are run down." "I really doubt that anyone will pass on a WDW vacation simply because Disney's CEO is overpaid and CM's are underpaid." I am going to Busch Gardens Europe, Staying at the Great Wolf Lodge, and topping it off with a few days at the beach. I'm dropping major coin and we will have a quality experience. Don't get me wrong. I still love Disney. We were there this past August, and had a great time. It just isn't as ...captivating, as it once was. And others have really kicked it up a notch. So I will go with the flow. I'm all for a Four Seasons in Otown. I'm not sure why Disney has to give up such a valuable giant chunk of real estate for them. They can buy their own place.
Originally Posted By mrichmondj << I am going to Busch Gardens Europe, Staying at the Great Wolf Lodge, and topping it off with a few days at the beach. >> As long as it's not Va. Beach, you might be okay. That is probably one of the sorriest beach towns on the planet. I lived there for six years. I can't imagine people pay good money to vacation there. Head further south to the Outer Banks and it gets a little better.
Originally Posted By Spirit of 74 <<Give the rich people money they don't raise employees saleries they stay at more expensive luxury resorts.>> Of course they do ... what would you expect from the (cough, cough) greatest country on earth that values $$$ above human life. Is a CEO going to turn down a $20 million bonus that could help pay his employees healthcare when he could use it to buy his kids into the best schools, buy four vacation homes and make sure his 16-year-old has an AmEx Black in his wallet? C'mon ... what planet are you living on? Greed is good ... (Michael Douglas, Wall Street ... 1985 or 86)
Originally Posted By Spirit of 74 <<Disney has been offering 60% off two rooms for CM's. Are they doing that out of the goodness of their hearts?>> Hearts? Do Disney (or any other) execs even have those useless organs? <<When I first started reading Disney websites, (1996) everyone would fall over themselves for a 10% or 20% MKC or AP discount. Now the postcard/email rates seem to be up to 40% regularly and free ticket upgrades and free dining promotions.>> Yep ... in the 1970s, we'd have to book two years out to snag a room ... at rack rate or maybe 10% off. As late as the mid-90s, I was thrilled with off-season 30% discounts. Now? Rates are lower than ever. I stayed at DAK Lodge Christmas week for $129 a night and, no, that wasn't even a cast rate. That would have been around $99. Why? We all know why. Disney got greedy and thought everyone would stay on property. They overbuilt by a good 8,000 rooms at least, maybe more. And hence the constant discounting. I stay on property perhaps 80% of my stays at WDW (numerous every year) and the last time I paid rack rate was 1998, the week DAK opened. Nine years of getting discounts that hover in the 40-50% range (or now include free food) have conditioned me. Disney has lowered its quality. I wouldn't pay rack or even 10-20% off to stay there anymore. Not with all those great resorts open in the area. <<It seems to me people have spoken and Disney has decided that they aren't willing to make the necessary improvements.>> No. It's that Disney overbuilt and can't command the rates it once did. They just can't ... but rest assured, Disney makes a huge profit when it 'gives' rooms away at discounts too.
Originally Posted By mrichmondj << ... but rest assured, Disney makes a huge profit when it 'gives' rooms away at discounts too. >> Really? When I tally up the detailed figures in their annual report, it appears to me that the only profit being made at the Disney parks these days is from time shares and real estate sales at Celebration. Without the real estate, I don't see much profit at WDW at all.
Originally Posted By Mr X >>>I'm sure it will be beautiful, I just don't want it located within the property line of the Walt Disney World Resort. I have nothinf against 192 it serves its purpose. No matter how much you landscape are how much themeing you do I don't see how you can put shopping mauls, restaurants, and 4000 to 5000 lower, and moderate priced motels in a 450 acre site, and be proud to attach the name Disney to it. Off property fine, just not on property, my opinion. <<< See, there's more to "on property" and "off property" than meets the eye. Sure, you wouldn't want some 192 strip mall stuck between Epcot and MGM, of course (and I highly doubt something like that would happen). But did you realize the entire mall zone just outside hotel plaza blvd is actually "on property"? (the grocery store, the el torito, the waffle house, the perkins restaurant, and whatever else is still there) I don't think this is any different, just people here are noticing it (noone else will). What they keep inside those "gates" though, that's likely a different story. Although I was surprised that Animal Kingdom was built so close to the edge. Seems weird to take that back road off 192 and end up "on property" within a couple of minutes!
Originally Posted By pheneix >>>Really? When I tally up the detailed figures in their annual report, it appears to me that the only profit being made at the Disney parks these days is from time shares and real estate sales at Celebration.<<< Wow. If you have time would you like the post your analysis? I'm not trying to call you out or anything like that, I'd just really love to know how you came to that conclusion.
Originally Posted By Spirit of 74 <<Really? When I tally up the detailed figures in their annual report, it appears to me that the only profit being made at the Disney parks these days is from time shares and real estate sales at Celebration. Without the real estate, I don't see much profit at WDW at all.>> Numbers are made to lie all the time. I know you're a management type, but it is absurd to say that Disney's hotel business isn't extremely profitable. I'm not going to argue this point. I've had execs of the company tell me the same thing. I understand your opinion that the theme parks make no profit and the hotels don't and they are a terrible business for Disney to be in ... but it's patently absurd, no matter how you spin the numbers. It's also something that even Bob Iger and Jay Rasulo would refute heartily.
Originally Posted By ssWEDguy >> I understand your opinion that the theme parks make no profit << I understand that in the movie business, most movies "make no money" either, including the block busters. It's all in the bookkeeping.
Originally Posted By Spirit of 74 <<See, there's more to "on property" and "off property" than meets the eye. Sure, you wouldn't want some 192 strip mall stuck between Epcot and MGM, of course (and I highly doubt something like that would happen). But did you realize the entire mall zone just outside hotel plaza blvd is actually "on property"? (the grocery store, the el torito, the waffle house, the perkins restaurant, and whatever else is still there)>> The Crossroads at Lake Buena Vista, which opened in 1988, was indeed built on Disney land that was leased. But Disney sold the land about a decade ago, so that's no longer on property. And that's much smaller in scope than the massive development Disney is planning here. Like someone said on another Disney site I frequent, it's like thc company is actively trying to make another Harbor and Katella in a place where Walt said 'we have enough land for all the dreams we can possibly imagine.' Somehow I doubt he was thinking of Disney-fied strip centers and Disney-designed Comfort Inns anymore than he was speaking of timeshares or tacky motels with giant icons. WDW has become all about real estate, while using the Disney name to make people believe they're getting quality.
Originally Posted By Spirit of 74 <<I understand that in the movie business, most movies "make no money" either, including the block busters. It's all in the bookkeeping.>> Great point, SS. And perfect analogy. I remember when Forrest Gump came out and became one of the biggest films of all time and Paramount was claiming it didn't make any money ... that was the first example of huge 'finagling' of the numbers to make the bottom line what the execs wanted. There have been Wall Street types whining that Disney, which only had the top two films of 2006 including the No. 3 all-time film, didn't make enough due to promotions, costs etc ... It's BS pure and simple.
